Appeal 6008169

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development differs between the application form and the council’s decision notice. [name] have no evidence that the appellant agreed to a change in the description, I have used the description from the application form in the banner heading above, which accurately describes the proposal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the Edgbaston Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal site is within the [name], which was first designated in 1975 and later extended in 1984 and again in 1992. On the evidence before me, including the Edgbaston Conservation Area Character Appraisal (1998), insofar as it relates to this appeal, the significance of the CA as a whole is largely derived from the diverse range of traditional architectural styles of residential properties dating from early 19th Century to the late 20th and the verdant character of residential streets.

In determining this appeal, I shall have regard to my statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

[address] street scene is typical of this character, being largely comprised of substantial dwellings of varying traditional designs indicative of the period and set on a consistent frontage. Window openings tend to be of traditional sizes and proportions, giving a relatively high ratio of walling to glazing and a clear sense of solidity to the buildings. Substantial vegetation contributes to the appearance of the area, and the street has a pleasant, verdant character as a consequence. The CA appraisal refers to the variety of architectural styles as banishing uniformity.

The appeal property is a detached, early 20th century dwelling located on the northern side of the road. At the time of my site visit, the property was being extensively enlarged by substantial two-storey extensions to both sides plus a large flat roofed rear extension and other alterations and additions. The evidence indicates that the council granted planning permission for these extensions and alterations. Construction works are at an advanced stage, and I have no reason to think that these works will not be completed. I have accordingly considered the contribution made by the existing dwelling to the CA in its approved extended form, including the existing porch, and the effect of the proposed porch on that basis.

I have had regard to the appellant’s Heritage Impact Statement which describes the appeal dwelling as inspired by the Arts and Crafts style, but not exemplifying it. Nonetheless, taken as a whole, I find that the individualistic and traditional architecture of the appeal dwelling, which is derived from, amongst others, its sloping roofs, chimneys, gabled roof form, the sizes and proportions of windows and its materials, makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

The existing entrance porch is a stone structure with an arched entrance and solid timber door, with small windows on both sides. The porch is a relatively small part of the large dwellinghouse and is set in a recessed position behind the large front bay projections and has a subordinate relationship to the extended host dwelling, which is set-back from the highway. Nonetheless, its distinctive traditional architecture is an integral part of the host dwellinghouse that reinforces its character and appearance, and contributes positively to the diversity of traditional architectural styles of buildings in the CA. In that context, the traditional appearance of the existing porch makes a small but nonetheless positive contribution to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the CA as a whole.

The proposed entrance porch would be an open structure with a flat roof supported by vertical columns. Recessed behind this structure, the entrance to the property would be predominantly glazed. The glazing to the entrance, although subdivided by thin glazing bars, would be considerably larger in surface area than any of the existing front windows. Given its size, the glazed entrance would have an overly modernist appearance in views from the road that would contrast markedly with the traditional appearance of the host dwelling, resulting in the harmful erosion of its architectural integrity. Consequently, the positive contribution that it makes to the character and appearance of the CA would be harmfully eroded.

For those reasons, the proposed development would in totality, fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA, and would harm its significance as a designated heritage asset.

Taking account of the above, the harm to the CA would be less than substantial and low on the spectrum of such harm. Whilst less than substantial, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes clear at paragraph 212 that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets. Paragraph 215 of the Framework establishes that less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.

The public benefits of the proposed development are limited to the economic benefits derived through the employment of tradespeople during the construction period and the purchase of goods and materials. Those public benefits carry little weight in favour of the proposal and are not sufficient to outweigh the harm to the CA as a designated heritage asset, and the great weight to be given to its conservation.

Taking all of the above into account, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Edgbaston Conservation Area, contrary to Policies PG3 and TP12 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017), which require the design of development to respond to site conditions and local context and give great weight to the conservation of heritage assets in accordance with national policy. For the same reasons, it would conflict with the conserving and enhancing the historic environment objectives in Chapter 16 of the Framework.

There would also be conflict with the objectives of the Birmingham Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2022) insofar as it states that front extensions should improve the appearance of houses, and porches should be in keeping with the appearance of the street and reflect the style of the house.

The appellant draws my attention to a planning permission granted by the council at [address] which, it is suggested, demonstrates that alterations to original front elevations, including the introduction of porch structures, are not inherently harmful within this part of the [name]. However, the full details of that decision are not before me, and I cannot therefore be satisfied that the two schemes are comparable. It therefore has limited relevance to my considerations in this appeal and does not alter my conclusions on the main issue.

The proposal would deliver benefits described by the appellant as enhanced weather protection and accessibility and a more practicable and legible point of access to the dwelling. However, these private benefits to the occupiers are not sufficient to overcome the harm to the [name] have identified.

The council’s second reason for refusal makes reference to Policy DM2 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document (2021) which seeks to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents. The council’s submissions found no harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents, and I see no basis to disagree. Accordingly, I find no conflict with this policy which is not relevant to the main issue in this appeal. An absence of harm in that regard would be a neutral factor.

For the reasons given above, I have concluded that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations that would outweigh the conflict with the development plan. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.